discussion post 2

.docx

School

Arizona State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

45744

Subject

Philosophy

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by Rosie2010

An example of persuasion would be with jurors numbers eight and nine. Juror eight (Davis, the minority juror) engaged in persuasion by pressuring the other jurors to reconsider just how reliable the eyewitnesses were and whether they could truly trust their testimonies. He pressured them to deliberate by explaining his reasoning processes because he thought it was a disservice to the young boy to find him guilty without revisiting some evidence. According to the video, at 33:45, he successfully persuaded juror Nine ( McCardle). This form of persuasion would fall under the principle of Consistency in harnessing the science of persuasion. In this principle, successfully persuading another to change their belief due to a more accurate view of information can lead to Consistency under persuasion. Consistency makes people voluntarily align with their commitments and makes them public. Juror Nine (McCardle) made his decision public and voluntarily, and he not only stuck to his decision but also provided input to help the minority juror further his point that the eyewitness accounts were not credible. Several examples of influence throughout the movie successfully changed the minds of the majority jurors, and some were unsuccessful. The first example of informational influence is at 28:46 when juror Eight (Davis) provides evidence of his own to challenge that the knife used in the murder was one of a kind by presenting an identical knife. Juror Eight (Davis) thereby debunked the prosecution's assertion that the knife was one of a kind and that it had to have been the boy who murdered his father. With the support of other jurors, Juror Eight then debunks all of the prosecution's evidence throughout the movie one by one. Juror Eight (Davis) successfully influenced the majority jurors to change their minds by providing facts to support his arguments. According to the movie, at 43:11, a few jurors found his argument compelling and began to change their minds. This part of the movie also aligns with the Consistency principle of persuasion because the jurors voice their change of mind. On the other hand, social influence, which juror number three engaged in, was unsuccessful. Social influence, also known as normative influence, can occur when a person applies social pressure to change someone's mind. Throughout the movie, juror Three tries to intimidate and peer pressure other jurors to find the boy guilty. He does this by yelling and displaying aggressive and hostile behavior when the minority jurors present compelling arguments that challenge the validity of the prosecution's evidence. His attempts at social influence through social pressure were unsuccessful. Juror Eight held the minority opinion and, by the end of the movie, successfully influenced the eleven other jurors to find the young boy not guilty. The minority influence that juror number Eight (Davis) displayed was challenging, but over time, he presented enough informational influence to convince the others that the eyewitness accounts were not credible. Secondly, he was consistent throughout deliberation, even in moments when juror Three was attempting to coerce him. His consistency influenced the majority jurors in two ways. The first is cognitive influence; the eleven other jurors began to consider his message because he refused to waiver under pressure, and his consistency created conflict within the majority and led them to believe his perspective. The second is the social aspect of consistency influence. An example is at 1:15:44 when juror Seven changes his mind and finds the boy not guilty. He never provides a real reason, but he does it to align with the changing majority opinion of the boy not being guilty. The third factor in minority influence is investment/effort. Davis, the minority influence, put in a

lot of effort to debunk every piece of evidence the prosecution presented. His consistency led other jurors to help him challenge the majority's opinion. With their support, which is the most crucial of the minority influences factors, he debunked the stabbing, the older gentleman's testimony, as well as the female witness's testimony. In the end, he successfully convinced all eleven jurors to find the boy not guilty.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help